Highlights of a Literature Review on

Youth, Recreation & Youth Drop-in Centres


St. Stephen’s Community House
St. Christopher House
Davenport-Perth Neighbourhood Centre
Lakeshore Area Multi-Service Project (LAMP)
Boys & Girls Clubs of Ontario

A.  Youth Recreation Supported in the Literature

Formal and informal evaluation of existing drop-in programs and a review of the literature on youth and recreation support the development of an alternative model drop-in centre to meet the particular needs, interests, and challenges of at-risk youth.  The literature review was helpful in understanding patterns of participation, the impact of recreation and physical activity on adolescent development, and in identifying barriers to participation.  Program evaluation and participant feedback has also shed light on the barriers, as perceived by youth, and significantly influenced the design of programs and services in the drop-in environment.

It is important to note that the literature exploring the impacts of physical activity and recreation on youth focuses on “structured recreation”.  While definitions of structured recreation vary slightly from article to article, common themes include activities involving instruction, choice, and skill development (CICH, 2002; CCSD, 2001).  Structured recreation covers a wide variety of mainstream and alternative activities relating to the development of the “whole” person.  Activities may range in structure from highly active and group-focused to passive, individual pursuits, and include arts, music, and cultural forms of expression.

B.  Youth Participation is Declining and is a Problem

Over the past several decades, there has been a significant decline in youth activity and fitness levels (Kino-Quebec, 2000; Sub-Committee on the Study of Sports in Canada, 1998).  In fact, young Canadians appear to be up to forty (40) percent less active than youth of 30 years ago (Canadian Fitness & Lifestyle Research Institute, 1993).  Television, computer games and, more recently, Internet, email, and chat rooms have assumed increasing prominence in the lives of young people and have contributed to a more sedentary lifestyle.  The individual-focus of these activities also discourages face-to-face social interaction and may contribute to physical isolation.  Health Canada’s 2001-2002 Health Behaviours of School-Aged Children survey reveals a significant gender difference in physical activity—indicating that sport is still primarily a male domain.  A high proportion of students reported watching several hours or more of TV each day, and more than 2/3 of older students spent at least one (1) hour each weekday playing computer games (Health Canada, 2003).  

Lower levels of participation in structured recreation and physical activity are also correlated with activities and behaviours of higher risk. Not surprisingly, lower rates of physical activity are correlated with increased weight and obesity—in the mid-1990’s, 1 in 5 Canadian youth were obese (Canadian Parks & Recreation Assoc., 1995).  Low levels of physical activity are more common with: smoking, inadequate family support, lack of education, social isolation, depression, inadequate peer support, and low socio-economic status (SES) (Canadian Parks & Recreation Assoc., 1995).

C.  Youth Activities have Many Benefits

Structured recreation and physical activity play a significant role in the health and well being of youth.  Participation in structured recreation may have benefits across a number of dimensions (or indicators) of youth physical, emotional, educational and social development.  (CCSD, 2001; Canadian Parks & Recreation Assoc., 1995; Browne, 2003; Audas & Willms, 2001; Hansen, Larson, & Dworkin, 2003).
  • Physical & Psychological health
  • Family interactions
  • Academic performance
  • Peer Influence
  • Community development

However, the benefits of structured recreation and physical activity are not automatic.  Whether or not the impact is positive or negative depends heavily upon the appropriateness of the activity and the social environment in which the activity takes place (CCSD, 2001).  In the literature, youth express a desire for drop-in centres that take a holistic approach to youth development.  Youth centres should offer a wide range of mainstream and alternative recreation activities in a loosely structured but supportive environment—one that embraces diversity, encourages youth participation and leadership, and provides positive role models (Canadian Parks & Recreation Assoc., 1995). 

Recreation may also play an important role in reducing adolescent or family reliance on other social services and programs.  In a study of women-led, lone-parent families on social assistance, Dr. Gina Browne reports that the total annual cost of a family’s use of all health and social services is 13% lower for families receiving subsidized recreation programs (Browne, 2003).  She notes that families receiving subsidized recreation report half the use of Medical Specialists, Children’s Aid Services, and 911 services, and a tenth the use of Social Workers and Probation Officers (Browne, 2003).  Browne concludes that investment in recreation leads to savings in publicly-funded health, social, and correctional services.  

D.  Youth Face Barriers to Participation

The traditional approach to youth recreation services centres on formal, organized sports and programming developed and delivered by adults.  However, youth-at-risk (in particular, girls and those from visible minority, low-income, disabled, or LGBT communities) face many barriers or limits to participation in the current mainstream system of structured recreation and physical activity (CPRN, 2001; Canadian Parks & Recreation Association, 1995).  Young people who are uninterested or unable to participate in organized sports and highly structured recreation activities may become socially isolated and increasingly inactive. 

Youth-at-risk may face three (3) types of barriers to participation in recreation programs and services: (a) those relating to material means, such as poverty/low-income, and transportation; (b) barriers rooted in ideas or perceptions, such as gender norms; and (c) limits from service delivery models and individual social support networks.

·          Fees/Lack of Money
·          Transportation
·          Gender
·          Racial Discrimination
·          Rigid Program Structure
·          (Competitive) Sport Focus
·          Lack of Information
·          Adult Organization/Program Focus

Peter McLaren’s (1999) survey of Ontario parents showed that costs and scheduling were the main reasons cited by parents to explain why youth do not take part in some activities.  The problem of cost is particularly acute for youth from low-income families.  The increasing incidence and rising cost of municipal recreation user fees discourages participation of low-income youth and many privately-run (extra-curricular/off-campus) sports and recreation activities have become prohibitively expensive for these families. 

Gender also plays an important mediating factor in the frequency and nature of participation in structured recreation.  From the onset of adolescence, many young girls substantially reduce their physical activity.  For example, a study of Quebec students aged 14-16 showed that girls were roughly half as active as boys (Kino-Quebec, 2000).  In addition, girls seem less drawn to team sports and competition, and more likely to participate in cultural and interpersonal activities (McLaren, 1999; CPRN, 2001; Offord, Lipman and Duku, 1998).

Rigid program structure and racial discrimination are two other significant barriers for youth at risk.  Many at-risk youth are unwilling or unable to manage the regulated and controlled nature of sports leagues & other highly structured activities.  Visible/ethnic minority youth often perceive mainstream services to focus on “white, middle-class” values and interests (CPRN, 2001; Canadian Parks & Recreation Assoc., 1995).

E.  Youth Drop-in Centres Reduce Barriers

Youth drop-in centres minimise or eliminate all of the identified barriers to youth participation in structured recreation.  Across the province, youth drop-ins currently reach large numbers of otherwise isolated teens who do not participate in formal sports, arts, music, and recreational activities.  Drop-ins are often attractive to at-risk, alternative, visible minority and female teens because they offer free or low-cost activities, are not sport-focused and allow different avenues of personal expression, program diversity and time flexibility in a supportive, youth-friendly environment.

For youth-at-risk, recreation/drop-in centres are safe spaces to escape and deal with some of the challenges faced in everyday life.  The youth centre is a medium through which youth gain support from peers and leaders, establish peer cultures that maintain order and relative peace among diverse groups, and resist the negative expectations or destructive cultures that may exist within the broader marginalised community (White & Wilson, 2001). 

F.  Youth are asking for Drop-in Centres. 

The at-risk youth consulted in our youth program evaluations have expressed a strong desire for: 

  • Drop-in centres that offer a full range of services and a holistic approach, and

  • A wider variety of physical activity and recreation programs which include cultural pursuits

This is consistent with views expressed in recent Toronto-wide community consultations (United Way of Greater Toronto, 2003) and findings in the 1995 Canadian Parks & Recreation study, where youth also expressed a desire for alternative forms of recreation, youth involvement in program design and implementation, and programs that focus on building harmony between diverse groups.

Drop-ins create opportunities for youth to participate and show leadership in the selection and design of recreation activities.  This enhanced role encourages youth participants to develop competence (both in physical activity and in the sense of being able to constructively impact their environment) which has powerful effects on self-esteem and confidence (Hanvey, 2003, Audas & Willms, 2001).  Moreover, the accessibility of the centre and flexible program structure encourages the social integration of youth from diverse groups and backgrounds.

G.  Summary of Literature

  • Audas, Richard & J. Douglas Willms, 2001.  “Engagement and Dropping Out of School: A Life-Course Perspective”.   Report #W-01-1- 10E.  Ottawa: HRDC Applied Research Branch, Strategic Policy.  Available at: http://www.hrdc-drhc.gc.ca/arb.

  • Browne, Gina (2003). “Making the Case for Youth Recreation”.  Ideas that Matter. Vol 2. No. 3.  Available at http://www.ideasthatmatter.com.

  • Canadian Council on Social Development (CCSD), 2001.  “Four Hypotheses about the Public Policy Significance of Youth Recreation”.  Ottawa: CCSD.

  • Canadian Fitness & Lifestyle Research Institute. 1993.  “Are Canadian Children Fit?”  Available at: http://www.cflri.ca/pdf/e/rf9311.pdf.

  • Canadian Institute of Child Health. 2002.  “Recreation and Citizenship: A Review of Research Trends, Gaps, and Future Directions”. Ottawa: CICH.

  • Canadian Parks & Recreation Association.  1995.  “Impact and Benefits of Physical Activity and Recreation on Canadian Youth-at-Risk”. Available at:  http://www.lin.ca/lin/resource.

  • Canadian Policy Research Network. 2001.  Literature Review on Learning through Recreation.  Ottawa: CPRN.

  • Hansen, David M., Reed W. Larsen, & Jodi B. Dworkin (2003).  “What Adolescents Learn in Organized Youth Activities: A Survey of Self-Reported Developmental Experiences”.  Journal of Research on Adolescence.  Reprints available through the author by email: dmhanse1@uiuc.edu.

  • Hanvey, Louise (2003). “Social Inclusion Research in Canada: What Do We Know and Where Do We Go?”  Laidlaw Foundation.  Available at http://www.laidlawfdn.org.

  • Health Canada. 2003.  “Young People in Canada: Their Health & Well-being—The Health Behaviour of School-Aged Children Study”. Available at: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hppb/childhood-youth/spsc.html. 

  • Kino-Quebec. 2000.  “L’activite physique, determinant de la sante des jeunes”.  Available at: http://www.kino-quebec.qc.ca/publicat/fs_pub.htm.

  • McLaren, Peter. 1999.  “A Survey of Recreational Opportunities for Children and Youth in Ontario”.  Toronto: Ont. Ministry of Citizenship, Culture, and Recreation.

  • Offord, David, Ellen Lipman, & Eric Duku. 1998.  “Sports, the Arts and Community Programs: Rates and Correlates of Partiipation”. Paper W-98-18E.  Ottawa: HRDC, Applied Research Branch.

  • Sub-Committee on the Study of Sport in Canada. 1998.  “Sport in Canada: Everybody’s Business—Leadership, Partnership and Accountability”.  Available at:  http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfoComDoc/36/1/SINS/Studies/Reports/sinsr

  • United Way of Greater Toronto. 2003.  “Torontonians Speak Out on Community Values  and Pressing Social Issues”.  Toronto: United Way.

  • Wilson, Brian & Philip White. 2001.  “Tolerance Rules: Identity, Resistance, and Negotiation in an Inner-City Recreation/Drop-in Centre” Journal of Sport & Social Issues, Vol 25, No. 1, February, pp. 73-103.